Lapping up the worse business models, attacking the fairest.

[Tech614]

Comparing buy to play games to free to play games... Seems legit.

[AeneasBK]

How did this thread get beyond the first couple of responses?

People, don't feed trolls or debate with people who aren't interested in it.

On another note:

My problem with Overwatch is that there is absolutely no way to work towards a skin you want. You either have to get lucky in a crate or eventually get enough currency (which its acquirement is random) to buy it outright.

Um.....

If you haven't had enough duplicates/dorrardorrar in your loot boxes to buy every skin you want... you don't play much Overwatch.

[Collected]

The way I see it.. the business model should be judged on how many hours of game play you get per dollar of your spend.

So take a game like Overwatch. Granted.. some folks quit after a few matches. For them it's not a great deal. But many others have pumped hundreds of hours into that game. For them.. it's a steal. Same with a game like World of Warcraft. Yes it's a month sub.. but again.. people get hundreds of hours out of that monthly sub. It's incredible value for money. If you're into Hearthstone or Heroes.. again you're likely to be getting insane value for money.

So for me there are many others games that offer far less hours of gameplay for what you spend on them. The ones being debated here aren't really the worst offenders.

[zealo]

It's exacerbated by limited time skins, but it is still a problem nevertheless. Not having ANY control over the skins you acquire or at least when you acquire them leads to an apathy towards the game. Probability is against me that if I play today that I'll get something that I want and as I said in my post, I have gone 10 crates without getting any legendary skins OR currency to work towards the one I want, so there isn't even a great chance that I'll make progress towards buying the skin I want.

Sure I could play 10 hours a day and I'll probably get what I want pretty quickly, but the business model of the game shouldn't revolve around people who devote a large amount of time to the game. [

I said it in a thread when Overwatch first came out, but I really don't know why they don't reward you 50 currency for your first win of the day. That would make it so it would take 20 days to get a single legendary skin. Considering there are like over 80 legendary skins, it would take you a massive amount of time to get every skin and that's ignoring all the highlight intros, lower quality skins, etc.

It would provide a reason to log in a play every day and it would also help alleviate the frustration of the completely RNG loot system.

Or, you know, the progression system isn't built around people who picks up the game, plays for a month or two to never return to it.

It's a multiplayer shooter in the vein of Team Fortress 2 whom average players spend hundreds, heck even thousands of hours on over a long time. If the basic gameplay isn't drawing you back in on it's own, there's better games to play with more elaborate progression systems out there.

[Tech614]

The way I see it.. the business model should be judged on how many hours of game play you get per dollar of your spend.

So take a game like Overwatch. Granted.. some folks quit after a few matches. For them it's not a great deal. But many others have pumped hundreds of hours into that game. For them.. it's a steal. Same with a game like World of Warcraft. Yes it's a month sub.. but again.. people get hundreds of hours out of that monthly sub. It's incredible value for money. If you're into Hearthstone or Heroes.. again you're likely to be getting insane value for money.

So for me there are many others games that offer far less hours of gameplay for what you spend on them. The ones being debated here aren't really the worst offenders.

The problem with the dollar to hour ratio is not all hours are created equal.

You should always judge by the quality of the content, not the amount of time spent.

I spend 100s of hours in WoW a year with long time friends as a game to socialize and raid on. That's not a telling factor of the quality of the game, as while WoW is still a good game IMO the quality of content is far below average compared to other games I play. Might have only taken 18 hours to beat Uncharted 4 but that 18 hours where of 100x the quality of the content blizzard puts into WoW.

[Poppincaps]

Or, you know, the progression system isn't built around people who picks up the game, plays for a month or two to never return to it.

It's a multiplayer shooter in the vein of Team Fortress 2 whom average players spend hundreds, heck even thousands of hours on over a long time. If the basic gameplay isn't drawing you back in on it's own, there's better games to play with more elaborate progression systems out there.

I would argue that a factor in people not returning is that they don't feel rewarded for playing due to not having any control in what rewards they receive and not having any reason to log back in daily other than a weak ass XP bonus that doesn't even give you 10% of your level once you reach level 25 or whatever.

I have 80 hours in Overwatch. I've given it more than its fair shake. I just never play it without my friends and the lack of rewards is one of the main reasons for that.

- - - Updated - - -

How did this thread get beyond the first couple of responses?

People, don't feed trolls or debate with people who aren't interested in it.

On another note:



Um.....

If you haven't had enough duplicates/dorrardorrar in your loot boxes to buy every skin you want... you don't play much Overwatch.

I mean there's probably 10 or more legendary skins that I want and I doubt there are many players right now who have every single legendary skin they want right now just from playing the game and not buying any loot boxes regardless of how much they play.

[Baconeggcheese]

The question of 'worse' is subjective. There is no measure by which the expression of play in the instances provided favor the buy only model in defense of ala carte purchasing vis-a-vis free-to-play with the same set of options.

Hence why worse was in quotes.

And of course it does.

The OP even told us in the content of his post that one is getting less and paying more.

In the f2p models yes, which is the criticism being weighed against that model.

You don't though. Like at all. There are plenty of competitvely viable heroes that are 2k gold. You don't need every single hero in the game to be a viable player.

If I have every hero in the game and you have a small handful of generally useful heroes, I have a massive advantage over you. That's not really up for debate. If I have every skin in the game and you have none, I just look way more fabulous than you but it doesn't matter.

Also I was talking about being competitive, not just playing quick plays and being viable. What's viable in pubstomps is a totally different beast vs pushing ranked.

But if we really want to talk about business models, then Overwatch AND Heroes are both "shit" in comparison to a game like Path of Exile which is F2P with only cosmetic unlockables. But of course comparing PoE to Overwatch and Heroes would be ridiculous because it is apples to oranges.

You can absolutely compare the business models, and if that's the case then poe has a better business model than both for the consumer assuming you can still earn those unlockables and aren't forced to buy them (or if there's a lot of in game options so that the unlockables are gravy). It'd probably not be realistic for a large company like blizzard though.

[AeneasBK]

I mean there's probably 10 or more legendary skins that I want and I doubt there are many players right now who have every single legendary skin they want right now just from playing the game and not buying any loot boxes regardless of how much they play.

Fair enough, I've got a legendary skin for all the heros I enjoy (of which I think I purchased 2 from credits) which are Symmetra Soldier Pharah and 2 for Zenyatta (bought Symmetra and Pharah ones). I'll admit I didn't fancy the Winston ones so went with Epic for him; but have a few more legendary skins for heros I've not any current interest in playing, and about 3k credits. I guess I'm not as "catch 'em all" about the cosmetics in OW but I certainly don't feel like I'm missing out. Sitting at around 21/XX items for each hero. lvl 158.

I'll admit my comment didn't take into account how many different skins people would want, I just kinda feel by the time you've played a hero loads and really gotten into them you've amassed enough "duplicates/credit loot" to buy a heroic pose, highlight intro and legendary skin for them.

[Poppincaps]

Hence why worse was in quotes.

And of course it does.



In the f2p models yes, which is the criticism being weighed against that model.



If I have every hero in the game and you have a small handful of generally useful heroes, I have a massive advantage over you. That's not really up for debate. If I have every skin in the game and you have none, I just look way more fabulous than you but it doesn't matter.

Also I was talking about being competitive, not just playing quick plays and being viable. What's viable in pubstomps is a totally different beast vs pushing ranked.



You can absolutely compare the business models, and if that's the case then poe has a better business model than both for the consumer assuming you can still earn those unlockables and aren't forced to buy them (or if there's a lot of in game options so that the unlockables are gravy). It'd probably not be realistic for a large company like blizzard though.

Except in Heroes it isn't just me and you. It's me, you, and our entire teams. If a hero is OP as fuck then even if you don't own him, I guarantee someone on your team does if you're playing ranked. The problems you're bringing forth are really only an issue at high levels and by that time you've surely amassed a solid roster of characters.

Plus, heroes in Heroes of the storm aren't as pick up and play as heroes in Overwatch, so it is far better to have a small roster of characters you know how to play than to have ever character and not have any idea how to play them. I can't tell you how many times someone on my team or the enemy team picked Kael'thas because he was OP and absolutely sucked on him. Picking a good hero isn't any indication that you'll win. Also, even if the enemy chose Kael'thas you still had powerful characters like Li Ming, Falstad, Tracer, and Thrall to compete with him.

In the 1200 games I've played in Heroes, I've never once felt like my lack of playable heroes was preventing me from winning.

[Blueobelisk]

For some people they're the entire driving force behind investing in a particular game. For others they aren't..

"This skin helps me win at the game! Because I have it, I actually log in to play the game." Real pay2win right there...

[Graeham]

"This skin helps me win at the game! Because I have it, I actually log in to play the game." Real pay2win right there...

I didn't mention 'pay to win' at all. There's plenty of people - particularly in MMO's - that base much of their play time around collecting pets, mounts and neat looking gear. It's really no different to someone sticking to a game purely for the sake of PvP or PvE.

[melodramocracy]

What constitutes an advantage in any particular game is not universal in any sense. Thus not all players may feel paying for Jania is a paid advantage in a free-to-play game vis-a-vis a paid game that has additional purchases for enhancement.

1. I can play this game for free. Spend what I want or nothing.
2. I must to pay to play this game. Spend what I want or nothing.

In #2, a player has already spent money and may have an expectation (regardless of right to such an expectation) for the content delivery of said game. Whereas in #1, a player has a degree of transparency upfront about the value and content delivery of the game.

As someone above commented- it is an well debated point. One which is not in favor of the OP's rhetoric.

- - - Updated - - -

Being a draw to any part of the audience or desirable for part of an audience is not relevant to the necessity of cosmetic items. Gameplay is the only, the only, aspect of actual importance to any video game ever created and will be created.

Gameplay isn't the only aspect of actual importance. If a game plays great, but the player feels at some point like they're "done", they stop playing, no matter how good the game is. This is fine for single player games, less so for multiplayer co-op (as many MMO's tend to be).

But yes, advantages aren't going to be agreed upon when it comes to deciding whether a game is P2W or not. What's almost undisputable is that anything available via extracurricular means (cash shops) could have easily been implemented as in-game rewards in any number of ways, no matter how advantageous or merely cosmetic a given item is... and by choosing to NOT give players an in-game means to acquiring said object, devs are diminishing the value of their own game.

Or to put this another way.... the goal here isn't to create a game that is actually free... the goal here is to present a free game, and then encourage a player to spend as much, if not more, than they would have through traditional purchase / subscription agreement. If that is not accomplished, that player generates no income for the developer. Granted, this doesn't apply to a game like Overwatch, which is B2P, though it's easy to envision future maps etc costing additional money.

[Deleted]

Being a draw to any part of the audience or desirable for part of an audience is not relevant to the necessity of cosmetic items. Gameplay is the only, the only, aspect of actual importance to any video game ever created and will be created.

I think we are living on different planets. Here on mine there are plenty of games that measure their worth on visuals alone while their gameplay is mediocre at best... People.. lots of people actually are getting in to particular game because of visuals first. Please do remember that value of gameplay has been greatly diminished over last 10 years in the eyes of general public...

In general, selling games for that much with content that in most cases has to be bought is new height of "fuck you" from publishers/devs. Then again I have to admit that I'm part of the problem cause I bought this game too and therefore strengthened Blizz in their vision of brainless players that will buy anything with their logo...

It's one of those sad moments when you wake up feeling dirty and no amount of time spent in the shower will help you get rid off that feeling......

[Saintlel]

Why are gamers so stupid?

They attack and rage at Overwatch for their loot boxes and purely cosmetic microtransactions, while lapping up and even defending pay-for-advantage shit like Hearthstone, LoL and Heroes of the Storm, which sells heroes (not all heroes are equal) for real money.

Hypocrisy. Stupidity.

Stopped reading there, people have gotten Challenger/Rank 1 playing only one hero, owning the whole roster only gives you a slight advantage in counterpicking, but it's better to just master one hero/champion and climb with it

I mean fuck at that point you might as well just buy a rank boost if you're going to consider buying characters as an advantage, that'll get you better results and is actually pay 2 win

[paralleluniverse]

Stopped reading there, people have gotten Challenger/Rank 1 playing only one hero, owning the whole roster only gives you a slight advantage in counterpicking, but it's better to just master one hero/champion and climb with it

I mean fuck at that point you might as well just buy a rank boost if you're going to consider buying characters as an advantage, that'll get you better results and is actually pay 2 win

People are winning gold medals without using drugs.

Thus, drugs are not unfair.

Fuck that shit.

[unholytestament]

People are winning gold medals without using drugs.

Thus, drugs are not unfair.

Fuck that shit.

I need comedy like this first thing in the morning.

[May90]

I have no problem with anything sold for real money in a game, when you can get the same in a reasonable time by just playing it and not paying anything. Now, I don't know anything about Overwatch, but other games you mentioned are like that, so I don't really see the problem.

[Alydael]

Are you going to try and convince us that cosmetics are not optional? A super special skin might be a huge draw for some players but not others.

And he/she is not even considering that while one person might like and want a certain skin, another person might find it ugly and not care for it.

He is right about them being a huge draw. GW2 (fashion wars as some call it) funds their whole game on it basically. While you can't consider a cosmetic items a pay to win item, when cosmetics is all your end game has then they are not "completely optional." As far as I know, cosmetic rewards is all Overwatch has. So it is fair to debate how they are treated/ rewarded.

[May90]

And he/she is not even considering that while one person might like and want a certain skin, another person might find it ugly and not care for it.

He is right about them being a huge draw. GW2 (fashion wars as some call it) funds their whole game on it basically. While you can't consider a cosmetic items a pay to win item, when cosmetics is all your end game has then they are not "completely optional." As far as I know, cosmetic rewards is all Overwatch has. So it is fair to debate how they are treated/ rewarded.

I've never understood the phenomenon of people caring about cosmetics in a video game. Oh, well.

[Alydael]

I've never understood the phenomenon of people caring about cosmetics in a video game. Oh, well.

How your character looks actually tends to play a big part in your "engagement." A lot of players will not play a character if they do not like how it looks. That is why some games have elaborate character creation options. Look at Black desert, they are actually selling French maid costumes and little sailor outfits for your toon in their shop. I won't even touch that one...